Shacheendra Dwivedi, J. -- 1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under section 438 Cr.P.C. which raises the important and thought provoking issue whether once an application for the grant of anticipatory bail of an accused has been dismissed by the Court, his second application for the same relief would not be entertained by the Court as being not maintainable.

2. The petitioner had filed an application before the Sessions Judge, Gwalior, for the grant of anticipatory bail under section 438 Criminal Procedure Code (for short the 'Code'), but before the Court could examine the merits of the case or comment there upon; he wanted his application to be dismissed as not pressed and it was, therefore, dismissed as such, when the petitioner thereafter moved second application for the grant of anticipatory bail with some more details, the application was dismissed by the learned Court below merely on the ground that the application being the second one was not entertain able or maintainable in view of a single Bench decision of this Court in Ramsewak Sharma v. The State of M.P. (Misc. Criminal Case No. 4109/92). The issue is one which falls under Chapter XXXIII of the Code. " 3. It is Chapter XXXIII of the Code which relates to the provisions as to the "Bail and Bonds' and sections 436, 347,438 and 439 deal with those matter.

There is absolutely no whisper in the Chapter which may impress that a bar was created by the law in the second bail application particularly for the grant of anticipatory bail, being entertained by the Court. The bail is the right of an accused. It is rather his legal right which attracts and very much concerns the fundamental right of liberty of a citizen envisaged in our Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.

4. The liberty of a citizen cannot be jeopardised without the due process of law. Procedure relating to the bails is mobile and not static. If an application for bail has been rejected once, it cannot be taken that the accused cannot exercise his right later basing it on subsequent events or on the change in circumstances or on the fresh ground being available to him. Rejection of bail, is an order of the moment. The valuable right of an accused cannot be shutdown and no fetters can be imposed, which have not been provided by law. It would not be within the competence of Court in exercise of its judicial discretion to do that which the law does not sanction. The language or the words of a statute must be interpreted by the Court with a view to promote public good and to prevent the misuse of power. The Court has to maintain the balance in between the "liberty" of an individual on one side and the "order" in the society on the other. 'The purpose of interpretation is to sustain the law.

5. In the authority, relied upon "by the lower Court, the single Bench of this Court has referred to and placed reliance on an authority of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Malla Ramarao and others v. The State (1992 Cr.LJ. 2208) for taking the view, in Ramsewak Sharma's case (supra) that:

"3. On rejection' of an application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by this Court, the options open to the applicant are either to surrender before the concerned authority or to file a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. Where he adopts neither of these courses, it will be reasonable to infer that in utter disregard of the process of law he has deliberately absconded. In such circumstances, his second application for anticipatory bail must be held barred at the threshold and he should be directed to surrender to the concerned authority forthwith."

6. But in the above referred authority of Andhra Pradesh High Court, the application for grant of anticipatory bail made by the accused petitioner was rejected by the Court under an appropria te order which meant that the Court after considering the merits of the case found the accused not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail. But then a